Hillary Gets Warm Welcome at State Department

Hillary Clinton went to her new office today and met with State Department employees. She received a warm welcome.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received a rousing welcome this morning when she arrived at Foggy Bottom for the first time, as cheering foreign service and civil service employee packed every inch of the C Street lobby, including the balcony overlooking the flags of foreign nations.

TPM's video here shows the throngs who assembled to greet her. President Obama and VP Biden will visit there this afternoon. [More...]

Clinton told the staff that President Obama and Vice President Biden would be visiting the department this afternoon "to send a clear and unequivocal message that we are a team and you are a member of that team." She said the new administration would "not tolerate the divisiveness" that had hampered foreign policy in the Bush administration.

Other comments:

there are "three legs to the stool of national security -- defense, diplomacy and development. We are responsible for two of three legs.... Robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long term tools for securing America's future."

Obama will announce George Mitchell as middle-east envoy and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan when he visits today. It should be at 2:40 pm ET.

< "Center Right" America Opposes Torture "No Matter The Circumstances" | Looking Forward By Looking Back >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Watching that was just Great. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Lil on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:18:00 PM EST

    Actually stunning might be a better adjective. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Lil on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    What a perfect example (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    of consensus style of management (often called female management style, but I was taught it by a good guy long before it was called that:-).

    So I'm thinking that I may use this at the start of an American women's history course next week, replacing "State Department" and "administration" with course.  It helps to solve a problem bothering me for months now -- how to open a course that will have to deal with the terrible treatment of women that we saw in this last year.  

    It's a better way to start than with the videos of the collective media and other campaigns' treatment of women; we can wait to see those when we get to the end of the course and the present time . . . toward tackling one of the final-exam questions always, which is to trace the history of treatment of women in this country into this new millennium.  We do live, and teach, in times that can be so discouraging to my young students.

    It's all so different from how I was able to open the course at this time last year -- and then had to watch the impact on students of the terrible treatment of Clinton, and thus of women.  (Btw, some of the male students were the most upset -- as men who take women's history have been raised by good fathers and mothers with respect for women.)


    Cream, that sounds ... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    like a great way to start the course.

    I'd also note, if I were you, that the cheers she received were clearly from both men and women.


    Good point -- and not only today (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    but throughout the campaign.  Thanks; consider lecture notes amended accordingly.  Carry on, class.:-)

    Have you seen (none / 0) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    the article in the New York some time ago (at least ten years, I'm thinking) about the difference between certain female styles of management that are bottom up and the typical "male" style of top down management? I don't recall whether it was written by a woman prominent in communications or her ideas were a main feature.  The analysis was, however, not at all reductionist but instead quite thoughtful.  If I can find it (I know I have a copy somewhere!) I can let you know the reference.

    Thanks -- (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    and no, I don't recall an NYT story on it.  So I would appreciate it, and so would students who would get to read this discussed in a briefer and more conversant style than what I have for them -- "whole books" (as students say:-) on it, scholarly articles on it, and other insomnia cures that just put students to sleep.  And that's sad, because it can be fascinating stuff that explains a lot of what I saw in my managerial years (and still see around me in many aspects of life. . . .).

    Sorry - typo (none / 0) (#43)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    was the New Yorker & quite a long article. I'll look for it over the weekend.

    Might have been written (none / 0) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:42:26 PM EST
    by Richard Reeves?

    What time period willc you focus on? (none / 0) (#57)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:05:34 PM EST
    Side question (having never taken a woman's history course), what are the "time periods" that are used to discuss woman's history and what are the major events that define them?

    We've been around a long time (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:57:12 PM EST
    so there are women's history courses covering every time period, topic, continent. . . .:-)

    My area is American women's history.  Many Euro-minded types teach it starting with what my Native American colleagues call the Columbian Invasion.  But I love teaching it from the prehistoric period on our continent, i.e., I start with the First People.  My Native American students -- and I have many, in my area with the most rezzes east of the Mighty Muddy, and on one of the first campuses with NA studies -- rather like that start.  

    Btw, on an urban commuter campus where students focus on college for jobs, I work a lot at tracking women's professions, employment, etc., too.  And as I have premed and nursing and health sciences students, I also have worked at learning about women in medicine.  You might enjoy that sort of course, Sam.  (You also might like a course taught by a colleague that is required for premeds on my campus: Race and Science in Medicine.)

    And, btw, I'm working at transitioning my women's history course to go online, with a lot of students increasingly without women's history courses on their campuses -- we're always the first cut in budget crises, such as we see now.  So maybe I'll see you online some other way sometime.:-)


    The moment you have an online class (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    It better be mentioned here.  The race and medicine class should be mandatory, because when medical school starts we get these bits of info, but we hate getting it (and some resent it) because it just takes up time and is not on the test.  One of the problems with many of these courses is that much of the information is nonsense when you look at the statistics (p values, etc.).  That is, blacks don't have higher levels of HTN, blacks living in Detroit where the only source of food is McDonald's have hypertension.  The real discrepancy is lies in medical professional not giving the same care (this is especially statistically true of Black women!!!!).

    I am (in the long term) against minority focused health care reforms, as I believe the focus should be on universal health care vs. group specific stop gaps.  That being said, until universal health care is close to a reality my money and vote will be behind increasing funding to "racist" groups like planned parenthood that "target" black neighborhoods, with the low cost amazing health services :).


    You sound like you've taken (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    the course -- or sure could help teach it; the TAs love the chance to do that course, as they learn a lot, too.  The prof (a woman) has tremendous expertise in the topic, pioneering the course and teaching it for a long time.

    Btw, we've got other great teachers in courses you'd like.  One who calls himself a "quadruple AAAA" as an Asian American/African American did his diss. on Tiger Woods and teaches a course on the history of hip-hop.  Kinda goes with our course on the history of the blues.  Not to mention a terrific course in the history of baseball, inclusive of the Negro Leagues, the All-American Girls League, etc.  And I teach lots of topics with titles that grab students, too -- such as the history of advertising . . . and you can imagine there is a lot to talk about in terms of race and gender in that, too.  Some of the old ads simply astonish students, right into the 1960s.  

    In sum, all these (and many more; it's a huge department on a huge campus) are just ways of approaching history through a cool topic, but every one of them is just a way to teach the same events in American history (or other regions' histories, in the case of those cool courses) . . . as experienced by everyone, not just Dirty DOWG (Dead Old White Guys:-) History As It Had Been Done.  And such cool-sounding courses get a lot of students getting into history for the first time, finding out that they do like it, after all, when it's about their past, everyone's past.


    Ah, missed another part (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:04:40 PM EST
    of your question; sorry.  In American women's history, just some of the crucial events would be the onslaught of Euros, starting with French Canadians coming into this country even before Plimoth Rock (historic spelling); the American Revolution, in which women played a major part (Ben Franklin's daughter was a top fundraiser); the Industrial Revolution in the 1820s (millgirls led the first labor strike in this country) . . . well, you get the idea that women have been part of every major event in this country.

    Some events specific to women's history, though, include the first women's seminaries (soon colleges) in the 1820s; the rise of the first reform movements in the 1830s, as women led the way; the rise of the women's movement in the 1840s -- and especially the first women's rights convention in world history, in 1848 in upstate NY; the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments in the 1860s that put the word "male" in our Constitution for the first time; thus, the rise of the women-only suffrage movement in 1869 -- when women first won the right to vote in one part of the country . . . and then the story for decades is "the struggle" to win the vote state by state by state until, finally, full federal suffrage with the 19th Amendment in 1920. . . .

    And I'll stop the lecture there, at the midterm.:-)


    especially the TPM version (none / 0) (#70)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:51:12 PM EST
    The place was packed. It's a wonder they could get a microphone to her. It was wonderful to watch.

    I was telling my wife (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    that we seem to have reached the point as a nation where we realize that diplomacy is far too important a job to leave a man in charge of it.  3 out of the last 4 Secretaries of State hail from the female persuasion, not bad.

    Not that Condi (none / 0) (#40)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    did a great job. I would love to know what she really thinks. Not that she is likely to ever be honest about it.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    I thought she did a better job as SoS than NSA, to be honest.  Although some of her less distinguished moments - like the infamous "birth pangs" quote - will truly live in infamy.

    In any event, the true test of equality is not whether an exceptional woman is allowed to do as much as an exceptional man, but whether a mediocre woman is allowed to do as much as a mediocre man!


    Not entirely clear (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    that she actually does think, IMHO.

    When she was a much touted "Russia expert" before Bush came into the picture, she simply parroted the conservative establishment line on Russia.  I have literally never heard a perceptive or insightful thought come out of her mouth on any subject.


    She signed with the (none / 0) (#52)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    William Morris Agency.   $$$$$$$ for speeches for her in her new life.

    Hillary will . . . (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    . . . make an outstanding SecState, I have no doubt.  

    Let the (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    de-bushing begin.

    Wingnutism of the Day (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by SOS on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    "Actually, I think B Hussein Obama is an idealist and I actually like him, it's just that in some areas his idealism is dangerous to our security, particularly when we're fighting savages from the 7th century."

    I guess republicans wouldn't know what to do if there wasn't "savages" to conquer.

    Good grief. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    I guess we do need reminding of how backward some can be.  That's straight out of the 19th-century American newspapers I've read -- although at least they often used the term "noble savages" before the standard statement of regret that we just had to take their land and way of life for their own good.

    I watched her giving the remarks to (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    the State Department staff this morning and I couldn't help but beam.  I get really good feelings about the top people in this administration.  They're all saying the right things right now...I really do hope their words are borne out by their actions.  So far...so good.

    Very impressive ... (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    and it's pretty clear that the gang at Foggy Bottom loves her.

    It was such a joy to hear a SOS who didn't begin and end every statement with a load of empty saber-rattling.

    The emphasis on development was especially welcome.

    And speaking of joy.  I think Obama could take a lesson from her on the ability to talk about serious subjects and still exude such joy and cheerfulness.

    Wow, you said it (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    It's a relatively new thing with her, too.  She did not start to exude that publicly until well into the primaries, though her friends have always said that's what she was really like.  Happy warrior, indeed.

    Remember how "cold" she was always said to be?  Heh.


    Which shows that ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    politicians can always learn new things.

    I wouldn't go that far... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:18:02 PM EST
    Robo, I was thinking that very same thing... (none / 0) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    I think Obama could take a lesson from her on the ability to talk about serious subjects and still exude such joy and cheerfulness.

    Obama had mojo to spare during his nomination speech, and in numerous other speeches during the primaries. So, it was quite unexpected to see him be relatively flat affect during both his speech at the inaugural concert and at the inauguration itself.

    On these two latter historic occasions, Obama projected no rousing jubilation, no infectious energy, no display of deep gratitude, no gracious outpouring of humility and appreciation, and certainly no misty-eyed moments of deep emotion for the honor of the office and the people who put him there.

    Still, he's evidently quite capable of displaying those sentiments - to varying degrees and under the right circumstances.


    Yup ... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:14:53 PM EST
    and for a study in contrast, watch Obama's appearance at the State Department.

    The crowd seemed excited, and responded well to his opening joke, but then he turned inward and spent most of the rest of his statement going from his notes to the prompter.

    I felt like screaming, "Lighten up, dude."

    I realize he's a cautious man, and likes to avoid mistakes, but cheerfulness is an excellent way of showing confidence.

    FDR and JFK were masters of it.  And, heck, from FDR and for decades after "Happy Days are Here Again" was the theme song of the Democratic Party.


    I watched (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by JThomas on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    most of the PC at State and I thought he struck the right tone. He was introducing Mitchell and Holbrooke who are diving into the most serious and challenging regions in the world and not a time to be joking around. He was also expressing confidence in the State dept to tackle the new philosophy with skill and vigor. More like a pre-game motivational speech than some kind of jokefest.

    The time for childish things is over...time to get serious.

    As if Hillary was any different...she too was serious in tone.
    I am so sick of the nit picking of Obama on here..get over it.


    In his defense (none / 0) (#44)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:38:37 PM EST
    he's carrying many burdens, and addressing them in very short order.  

    FDR was too ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    And, to paraphrase Ginger Rogers (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    he had to do it sitting down in a wheelchair -- or gamely struggling to the mic to make it look like he still could stand on his own.  (He did, anyway, in the ways that mattered. . . .)

    This only reinforces the perception... (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by magster on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    ...that January 20 was not an inauguration but a liberation.  Obviously the career diplomats were ready for change.

    I bet that the gang ... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    at Defense are jealous.  She's got a lot of fans over there as well.

    She can head Defense, too. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    What the heck.  Let's really be historic.

    praise for the professionals (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by noholib on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:36:22 PM EST
    I loved when Hillary praised the professionals for being smart and knowing how to get the difficult jobs done.  They deserve it! She does simultaneously exude commitment and gravitas and enthusiasm and humor. Has she ever come into her own!  Do you remember a year ago when she would nod almost mechanically when she spoke?  Now she lights up the room and inspires everyone.  When the primary ended, I felt that she still had a very important contribution to make, but I just didn't know where and how.  We are so lucky to have her as Secretary of State.  I believe she will do a lot of good for Americans and for women around the world.

    Beautiful (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by djork on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    I shed a few tears into my Capn Crunch watching her remarks this morning on cable news. This was the first moment it started to really sink in that the Bushies are gone.

    That was really fun to watch; it's (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    like she was greeted as a liberator, there to free them - at last! - from the clutches of an administration whose priorities seemed to consist of figuring out how to shoot it, torture it, spy on it or detain it, and couldn't be much bothered with the diplomatic and foreign service corps of the State Department.

    She looks like she can't wait to get to work - others might be intimidated or outright petrified at the responsibility, but she just radiates joy over it.

    I think I'm starting to breathe a little better, finally.

    Congratulations Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by S on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    I am watching Hill, Prez, VP, Holbrook and Mitchell now at State and I am so thrilled and inspired.  I am so pleased that the President has chosen not only to elevate the State Dept to the level he is communicating, but that he is showing the full confidence he has in Hillary and giving her the deference as a partner in restoring the peace and positive developments as we go forward...

    and I am so inspired that the USA will now be an honest and fair broker in the world and show compassion and understanding towards all sides in resolving conflicts

    finally, I am so thrilled to see George Mitchell and Richard Holbrook back on the scene...gives me confidence that the adults are back running the show...and the hotheads are gone...

    best birthday gift i could have received...

    As one who was (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    a Hillary supporter in the primaries and voted for Obama in the general election - with many reservations and regrets, I now see the selection of Hillary as Secretary of State as the revitalization of her public image and the end of the media noise machine with its constant refrains about her cackling, divisiveness, etc.  From the overwhelming vote in her favor and many accolades from her peers about her competency, to her hero's welcome at State this a.m. and Obama's signaling his confidence in her leadership at State this afternoon, her new public image seems to have arrived.

    I am hoping that the new public image of Hillary as the omnicompetent, charming, and collaborative professional she really is sticks, and I commend Obama for what he's done to put this all in motion.


    so true (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by S on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    I agree with you BFOhio...I hope this shuts up the troublemakers at MSNBC...cannot say I hold out alot of hope for Matthews...he still takes every cheap shot he can at Bill and injects and implies the prospect of trouble for Hillary every chance he gets...he tries to create trouble for her...he still relishes trying to make a joke of Hill and Bill...infuriates me...

    I am so proud of Hillary...it has already been said many times, but again for good luck...Hillary is truly amazing...her grace, graciousness, inner strength, perserverence, superior intelligence and fortitude...nothing gets her down...as she said in NH...she gets up, rolls up her sleeves and "rallies on"  


    Kelly O'Donnell (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:15:05 PM EST
    commented this afternoon that there seems to be not only a complete absence of tension between Hillary & BO but in fact an ease between them now.

    BTW, anyone know if Kelly is related to Larry O'Donnell?


    That was wonderful (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by esmense on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    Brightened up my day

    The video is very cropped for me. (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:19:55 PM EST

    Watch the TPM video (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:21:19 PM EST
    Very nice.

    Taylor Marsh too (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lil on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    Saw that earlier (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    it was a very warm welcome.

    I watched the TPM video - no ELS (none / 0) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    Meaning no "extreme long shot" which would have shown us the entire setting and all of the people in it. TPM got their footage from CNN, right? Wonder what was edited out. It'll be interesting to see how others shot it.

    As for TPM, they're forever tainted by their zeal to be the first on YouTube with that horribly misleading clip of an interview (5/23/08); where Hillary made reference to the length of the primary and the RFK assassination - which TPM and others framed as a threat to Obama's life. (Don't call me bitter - I resemble that remark!)

    Still, it does the heart good to see her enter the office of SoS with such overwhelming and enthusiastic support. She's earned it and she deserves it more than any contemporary figure who's held the position, imo.


    She's incredible (none / 0) (#10)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    I can't wait to see how different the world will be after she really gets started.

    She obviously has secret service with her. Because of her former first lady status she gets this protection for the rest of her life, right?

    I think the law giving former Presidents (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    and their families only 10 years of protection (stupid law) only applies to Bush on forward. So I guess she keeps that protection.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    POTUS can sign an executive order extending

    (children of former POTUS' only get protection to age 16).


    Must get really crowded at (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    the Bush family gatherings with all those SS guys.

    Every Presidential couple (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by WS on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    should get Secret Service protection for life.  He or She will still be President and First Lady/Gentlemen 10 or 20 years from now, why limit to just 10?

    so, uh... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Nasarius on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    What's the deal with Paterson? He's had at least six weeks to decide, and now the seat has been vacant since yesterday.

    Like Obama dragging out the VP announcement, this is starting to get silly.

    What's he waiting for?

    Maybe for everyone to sign up (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    for an email to be the first to know?  (Oh, wait, that didn't work so well on the VP, did it. . . .)

    She still has protection. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sweet Sue on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:57:13 PM EST
    I'd make the guy behind Hillary sporting the bright, blue tie as Secret Service. He didn't really looked at her but his eyes never stopped moving across the crowd.
    Either that or he's a disgruntled Bushie.
    It feels go to know that Hillary is on the job.

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    I'd make the guy behind Hillary sporting the bright, blue tie as Secret Service.

    I thought so too. He's looks just the right kind and degree of paranoid.


    He was irritating me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kitt on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:51:09 AM EST
    Until I realized he probably is Secret Service. Then I was mesmerized by his little roving eyes.

    Remember when? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Abbey on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    Remember when suggesting here that Hillary could make a good Secretary of State would produce a barrage of outrage?

    No (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    I don't remember that.  Do you have a link?

    You have a short memory (none / 0) (#53)
    by Abbey on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    I'd go back to find many such comments and responses, but the "Hillary Haters" that made such suggestions were mostly banned and their contributions vaporized.

    I have a long memory (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:38:17 PM EST
    but I don't remember anything of the sort.  In fact, it seemed like the idea of Hillary as SoS pretty much came out of a clear blue sky for most people.  No one had really imagined that Obama would put her in a foreign policy role - least of all the "Hillary haters."

    Let's see, if you were a Hillary-hater who believed that Hillary was a corporatist warmonger, Bush/Cheney-lite, the sort of person who gleefully authorizes an invasion of Iraq and never apologizes, a person who threatens to obliterate Iran at the behest of her AIPAC overlords - how am I doing at recalling the party line, do you suppose? - would you be likely to suggest that Hillary Clinton ought to be put in charge of our nation's foreign policy?  No?  Well, that's why I sorta have trouble believing that it was commonplace for the Hillary-haters to want to put her in that slot, frankly.

    Now, it's true, there was a time when Clinton and Obama were quite close in terms of delegates, coming down the home stretch of the primary campaign, and there was a contingent of Obama supporters who would repeatedly insist that Clinton had no mathematical chance of winning and should just drop out and maybe she could be Secretary of Health and Human Services or something similarly inconsequential.  With the benefit of my maybe-short, maybe-long memory, I recall that many such comments were in fact made, and that many Clinton supporters responded to them with the sort of disdain one might expect.

    But no, I don't recall any of the haters ever suggesting that Hillary might make a great Secretary of State.  Now, if there were really "many such comments" along those lines, I think you ought to take this opportunity to score the easy point and prove me wrong with a few examples.


    To be fair (none / 0) (#56)
    by starsandstripes on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:58:01 PM EST
    the OP didn't say the Hillary haters made comments about Hillary being SoS, but they were outraged at such a suggestion. I don't know if it was on Talkleft, but across the left blogosphere, there was a general outrage when Hillary being SoS was just a rumour back in November.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:06:53 PM EST
    TL has generally been of a slightly different bent than the rest of the left blogosphere with respect to this primary, so that would be a different issue altogether.

    I am pretty sure the OP did, in fact, suggest that a number of Hillary-haters had said that Hillary would make a good SoS and were pilloried for it, but I guess we have different interpretations.


    Oh (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:36:22 PM EST
    I thought you were talking about Hillary cultists who were outraged that Hillary be appointed SOS. According to many of them it was an evil plot by Obama to eliminate her power as a check him  from her Senate seat, and a way for Obama to knock her out of the 2012 race where she would otherwise soundly defeat him.

    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by Abbey on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    I thought you were talking about Hillary cultists who were outraged that Hillary be appointed SOS.

    Recommendations for SoS and other cabinet posts were met with fury - many times.  Hillary supporters considered it demeaning to suggest she might work under Obama.


    Not here (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by kempis on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    Most people here were pleased--and laughing at the uproar at DK when the rumor was floated and vociferously denied by those Obama-supporters who really did think that Hillary was Evil Incarnate and there was no way in hell Obama would invite her to join his cabinet, especially not at State. Remember The Field's recommended diary about the sly machinations that "Hillary's people" were going to in leaking the lie?

    What I find fascinating is how quiet it got over there when it turned out that Obama did indeed want Hillary on his cabinet--at State. The general reaction has been a collective "oh" after much "OMG she's so EVIL she's doing it again she's spreading this lie about Obama offering her State when he'd never do just a thing because she's just awful and blah blah blah...."  

    Now it's just "oh." It's like a mass denial that Hillary Clinton was trashed incessantly over there, just as bad as she was ever trashed at FreeRepublic or Red State or on Rush Limbaugh's program back in the 90s.


    Oh (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    It was mixed here. Some were outraged, but others thought it a good thing. In the end all came to support the choice as far as I know.

    Stuck (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:17:10 AM EST
    in 2008, some of you.  Happy New Year.

    Looking back.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Abbey on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    ....at your comments, I can easily understand why you would want to put 2008 out of mind.  However, what happened then will always be a measure of the relationship between the President and Secretary of State - for good or bad.  

    It's Gillibrand (none / 0) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:58:11 PM EST